App Store rejections continue to defy logic with NIN app

Apple's ambiguous standards for objectionable content have caused an update to …

The inconsistent manner in which Apple's App Store reviewers apply a provision against "objectionable" content in iPhone apps continues to rear its ugly head. Case in point: this weekend, Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor found out that an update to his band's nin: access iPhone application had been rejected on the grounds that it contained a reference to "The Downward Spiral."

Reznor is, to say the least, unhappy with the situation. The app itself contains neither the album "The Downward Spiral," nor the song of the same name. Reznor suspects the rejection might be due to the app giving access to a podcast that has the song "The Downward Spiral," but even if that's the case, that song doesn't have explicit lyrics in it. Ironically, the only song from the album that is marked "explicit" is the song "Closer," which Apple will happily sell you to play on your iPhone or iPod for 99�.

This is the latest in a long string of rejections that teeter on the edge of logic-defying, and highlights three important problems developers face when dealing with rejections based on section 3.3.12 if the iPhone SDK Agreement:

Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgement may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users.

The first issue is that "reasonable judgement" varies from person to person. There's no clear standard, and some apps get by while others don't, making the standard arbitrary at best. Second, developers often aren't given specific information about what in the app was found to be objectionable. Without a clear understanding of what is actually objectionable, it's hard for developers to know exactly what changes need to be made. And finally, apps that access additional content, third-party or otherwise, may run afoul of a reviewer's "reasonable judgement" even if that app itself doesn't—it happened to Tweetie recently, though Apple later approved that app's update.

Obviously, improving communication can help issue #2, and making some kind of clear differentiation on content accessed via an app can solve issue #3. But real crux of all this comes from issue #1. Definitions of "objectionable content" should be left up to users to decide, especially if Apple insists on being the sole source of applications. If app developers had an alternate method to get apps to users who aren't impressed with Apple's arbitrary definitions, we think the issue would be (for the most part) moot.

We couldn't agree more—not every app is G-rated as it is—and we have said such a system is a good idea before. Apple should use a rating system like the one used for movies, or even the one used for music (i.e. "explicit"). Then adults will be able to choose for themselves what content is objectionable or not, and parents could filter content for their children with parental controls. This should save a lot of work for Apple in the long run, save headaches for developers, and really go a long way towards improving Apple's image in the eyes of users.